TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the other hand the learned DR has opposed the admission of the appeal on this technical point. 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied with the explanations given by the learned AR of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the appeal on merits. ITA No. 277/Mum/2010 (by assessee) 6. The assessee has raised the following concise grounds in this appeal: "1. the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions made by the AO on account of following expenses: a) Out of expenses at Lucknow site Rs.4,56,000/- b) Out of labour charges (OMS) Rs.3,04,150/- c) Out of labour expenses Rs.2,49,251/- d) Out of labour charges within Maharashtra Rs.6,42,608/- 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating 10% disallowance of other expense at Rs.62344/- and out of other Minor Heads expenses disallowed at Rs.493197/- 3. (a) the ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue regarding exemption of capital gain u/s 54 and wrong working of the capital gain by directing the AO to rectify the order; &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t supporting by any evidence pertaining to one Shri Shri Omprakash Verma, Rajkot site and Kanpur site, the AO disallowed 10% of labour charges totaling to Rs.24,925/-. The labour charges incurred within Maharashtra as claimed by the assessee is Rs.64,28,064/-. The AO noted that the entire payment made in cash. The said expenditure was stated to have been incurred through Shri Arun K Tiwari, Om Prakash Verma and Shri Shashikant Singh. Since no details were filed as to when the expenditure was incurred, the AO disallowed the 20% of the said expenditure amounting to Rs.12,85,613/-. 8.1 The assessee has claimed the sum of Rs.10,67,157/- under the head transportation and hiring charges. The AO noted that the transportation expenditure to the tune of Rs.6,23,445/- shown by the assessee is in cash. Out of this Rs.6,23,445/- a sum of Rs.5,58,018/- pertains to Shri Shashikant Singh for Lucknow site. The AO has disallowed 50% of the said expenditure of Rs.5,58,018/- for want of necessary bills/vouchers. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,79,009/- was disallowed on this account. The assessee claimed other minor sub-expenses to the tune of Rs.49,31,972/-. Since payment of all the expenses were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proper and reasonable. He has relied upon the lower authorities. 13. We have considered the rival contentions and relevant record. It is evident from the record that the assessee has not produced any evidence in the form of bills/vouchers and even the complete details of the expenditures in support of the claim made by the assessee. Therefore, in our view the assessee has failed to prove the claim to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. We further note that the CIT(A) has also issued remand order and after considering the remand report of the AO dated 23.07.2009 found that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden of proving the necessary facts in connection with the claim of deduction. The assessee apart from the books of account produced before the lower authorities has not produced any material/evidence in the shape of vouchers/bills and other supporting evidence for the claim of the expenditure. Therefore, under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue who has already restricted the disallowance to 10% which is, in our view, is just and proper. Hence, grounds of appeal no.1 and 2 are decided again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital gain with Neelsiddhi Enterprises. However, as mentioned above and as per the receipts, there is no investment. An investment as require u/s 54 may be of direct purchase or booking of a property under construction. However, the assessee has not even booked a flat. He has given an amount to the builder and now the builder has stated that the amount is not for booking but reservation of a flat which may be converted into booking later on but at the same time the reservation may be cancelled also and not necessary to be converted into booking. The assessee has cited case law of CIT V/s Bharati C Kothari 160 CIT 165(Cal). However, the facts of that case are entirely different from the facts of the assessee's case. Hence, assessee's reliance on the same is misplaced. Therefore, assessee's claim of exemption u/s 54 is disallowed. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately (Addition : Rs.11,91,998/-) 17. We further note that in the computation part, the AO has added a sum of Rs.11,91,998/- under the head exemption u/s 54. Thus, it is clear that the claim of the aseseee u/s 54 was only of Rs.6,95,210/- and the disallowance made by the AO is of total inve....